SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2014
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing single incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.
Synthesis in World journal of surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery compared with conventional laparoscopy for benign adnexal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Updates in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions to optimize recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy: a scoping review.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Pooled it
- Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015.Surgical endoscopy · 2016Guideline
- Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2015Pooled it
- Practical Benefits of Single- vs. Three-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Pain Relief and Long-Term Cosmesis in Pediatric Patients: A Prospective Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic appendicectomy without the use of disposable materials - a low-cost alternative - 1,552 cases operated in 20 years.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2022Article
- Appendectomy in Switzerland: how is it done?Updates in surgery · 2019Article
- Feasibility and Safety of Single-Incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy by a Surgical Resident under Supervision of a Staff Surgeon.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2019Article
- Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review.World journal of methodology · 2015Article
- Transanal total mesorectal excision: a pure NOTES approach for selected patients.Techniques in coloproctology · 2015Article
- Open appendectomy with invagination of the stump rather than laparoscopic appendectomy-are we really serious?Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2014Article
- Three port laparoscopic appendectomy technique with low cost and aesthetic advantage.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SILA when compared with CLA through a systematic review.
methodsWe performed an electronic search of EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared SILA with CLA were included.
resultsSix RCTs met eligibility criteria, which included a total of 800 patients, 401 in the SILA group and 399 in the CLA group. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.47; p = 0.77). SILA had a higher technical failure rate (OR 3.30; 95% CI 1.26-8.65; p = 0.01) and required a longer operative time (mean difference [MD] 4.67; 95% CI 1.76-7.57; p = 0.002). SILA was associated with better cosmetic results (standardized MD -0.4; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.16; p = 0.001) and earlier return to normal activity (MD -0.64; 95% CI -1.09 to -0.20; p = 0.005), although these advantages should be taken with caution due to the small number of studies reporting these two items and the short follow-up in the evaluation of cosmetic results. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative pain or length of hospital stay between groups.
conclusionsSILA is comparable to CLA in selected patients, although it is associated with a higher technical failure rate and longer operative time. Further randomized trials are needed to determine if SILA really offers benefits over CLA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24682257What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.